Post by anik4700 on Feb 28, 2024 5:31:10 GMT -5
Protection of early childhood must be applied, in the absence of suitable grounds for mitigating the aforementioned constitutional guarantee", wrote the judge. In the same decision, the judge responded to a request from the Public Prosecutor's Office for data from the phones seized from the defendant to be accessed. He rejected the allegation that the procedure would violate the constitutional right to secrecy, since according to him, this right can and should be relaxed in the face of a possible serious criminal offense. He explains that access to data should not be confused with telephone interception as the first measure consists of obtaining mere data recorded/stored on the devices and projects, as a rule, into the past. The interception, in turn, is projected into the present. "Therefore, because the data breach is not a telephone communication itself, the case is not subject to the requirements set out in Law No. 9,296/96", he noted.
The defense was made by lawyer Felipe Folchini Machado .PRINCIPLE OF SELF-SURPRISE Giving legal classification to facts in divergence motions does not offend CPC Danilo Vital March 6, 2023, 5:47 pm CivilJudiciary There is no offense to the principle of non-surprise when the court, in deciding a motion for divergence, gives legal classification to the facts pointed out by the party, with the application of the law to the situation narrated in the case file. STJ Minister Regina Helena Costa drew attention to the faat the Trea Luxembourg Phone Number sury uses rules that it itself edited to support the thesis of nullity due to a surprise decision STJ With this understanding, the 1st Section of the Superior Court of Justice denied the nullity of the ruling in which it defined that the tax benefit that grants IPI credits in the production of exempt industrialized goods with a zero rate is also applicable to cases in which the product final is not taxed. The pro-taxpayer conclusion was challenged by the National Treasury in a motion for clarification, alleging an offense against article 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to which the judge cannot decide based on a basis on which the parties were not informed.
Opportunity to speak out. According to the Treasury, when the case was paralyzed due to a request for review, the taxpayer petitioned the file informing the existence of normative acts that would lead to a conclusion favorable to his own claims. They were taken into account in the winning vote cast, without giving the Treasury the opportunity to express its opinion. These acts, interestingly, are regulations of the Treasury itself and were already included in Minister Regina Helena Costa's vote before the petition. These are Normative Instruction SRF 33/1999 and Interpretative Declaratory Act 05/2006 . These standards were used by the minister to show that the Tax Authorities themselves, contrary to what they defended in the appeal, already recognized the possibility of IPI credit for non-taxed products supported by immunity arising from exports. According to Minister Regina, it is “a special reason” to observe that these acts issued by the Tax Authorities themselves are considered by the National Treasury as capable of supporting the thesis of nullity due to the occurrence of a surprise decision.
The defense was made by lawyer Felipe Folchini Machado .PRINCIPLE OF SELF-SURPRISE Giving legal classification to facts in divergence motions does not offend CPC Danilo Vital March 6, 2023, 5:47 pm CivilJudiciary There is no offense to the principle of non-surprise when the court, in deciding a motion for divergence, gives legal classification to the facts pointed out by the party, with the application of the law to the situation narrated in the case file. STJ Minister Regina Helena Costa drew attention to the faat the Trea Luxembourg Phone Number sury uses rules that it itself edited to support the thesis of nullity due to a surprise decision STJ With this understanding, the 1st Section of the Superior Court of Justice denied the nullity of the ruling in which it defined that the tax benefit that grants IPI credits in the production of exempt industrialized goods with a zero rate is also applicable to cases in which the product final is not taxed. The pro-taxpayer conclusion was challenged by the National Treasury in a motion for clarification, alleging an offense against article 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to which the judge cannot decide based on a basis on which the parties were not informed.
Opportunity to speak out. According to the Treasury, when the case was paralyzed due to a request for review, the taxpayer petitioned the file informing the existence of normative acts that would lead to a conclusion favorable to his own claims. They were taken into account in the winning vote cast, without giving the Treasury the opportunity to express its opinion. These acts, interestingly, are regulations of the Treasury itself and were already included in Minister Regina Helena Costa's vote before the petition. These are Normative Instruction SRF 33/1999 and Interpretative Declaratory Act 05/2006 . These standards were used by the minister to show that the Tax Authorities themselves, contrary to what they defended in the appeal, already recognized the possibility of IPI credit for non-taxed products supported by immunity arising from exports. According to Minister Regina, it is “a special reason” to observe that these acts issued by the Tax Authorities themselves are considered by the National Treasury as capable of supporting the thesis of nullity due to the occurrence of a surprise decision.